Religion The God Question (continued in Part 2 - link in last post)

[Tichmond Rigers]

I actually have no trouble with this claim other than the 'him' bit.

Yeah, we Muslims do not use "Him" as a term to refer to gender, hence the use of a capital to indicate other than that. Because of course, we believe that God created everything including the genders, and must not be either male or female Himself (Himself again is not used to refer to a gender)

 

[evo]

Yet many criticise the Hadiths. They argue that the Quran is sufficient as guidance: They suggest what is obligatory for man does not go beyond God’s Book. If anything other than the Qur’an had been necessary for religion Muhammad would have commanded its registration in writing, and God would have guaranteed its preservation. Nothing of the Hadith was recorded until after enough time had elapsed to allow the infiltration of numerous absurd or corrupt traditions.

At the risk of suffering Contra Mundum 's wrath for citing the great drunkard, I do like this critique of the Mohamadans.

 

[Tichmond Rigers]

So not buying it. You bending the rules to suit your desired outcome, to fit your woo.
The universe is not subject to time as time was created out of it...individual parts may be but only relative to the parts around them.
Substitute Universe for God and you have exactly the same scenario.

Explain why your god made such an ancient, immense universe for an insignificant number of toadies in an area which amounts to nothing?
You simply want to make yourself feel less insignificant than you think you are without really comprehending how overwhelmingly insignificant you actually are in terms of the universe.
You crave purpose so you create one.

Create a more plausible purpose and get back to me.
Cheers and happy Festivus.

Time lapses on us. The key thing that you are missing is that the Universe has similarities to us, in that it occupies space and undergoes change. If we have a beginning ourselves, the universe has also a beginning, for if we have no eternal attribute, the Universe does not either. Read my previous posts about what I said change entails.

Also, if you did not read everything that I said previously on this forum, you should not be commenting on my posts. This is because you need to have read everything to understand all the points that I am making.

 

[Tichmond Rigers]

Yet many criticise the Hadiths. They argue that the Quran is sufficient as guidance: They suggest what is obligatory for man does not go beyond God’s Book. If anything other than the Qur’an had been necessary for religion Muhammad would have commanded its registration in writing, and God would have guaranteed its preservation. Nothing of the Hadith was recorded until after enough time had elapsed to allow the infiltration of numerous absurd or corrupt traditions.

Yes, I know who those people who say this are. They claim to believe in Islam and pray 5 times a day, yet reject any other form of evidence. One may wonder how they actually know how many prayers they are required to pray, because that is not mentioned in the Qur'aan. The majority of Muslims accept the authenticity of the Hadeeths, so the people saying this are little in number in comparison.

Also, what those people did not realise is that the Qur'aan is transmitted in the same way the Hadeeths are transmitted to us, and if it is possible that the Qur'aan we read nowadays is the true Qur'aan revealed at that time, it is possible that the Hadeeths and the surrounding events related by the people at the time of the Prophet is also present today in its authentic form

Approval ratings of pre-marital sex do not measure the amount of pre-marital sex actually taking plac

Yes it does. It is less likely that someone who disapproves of a mosque enters a mosque in comparison to someone who approves of it. Hence, there is more people who approve of a mosque entering a mosque than there is people who do not.

Hence, there is less incidence of approval of fornication among older generations than younger generations. Obviously, the incidence of fornication among people who approve of it is going to be higher than incidences of people disapproving of it.

Drinking alcohol has a higher disapproval rating in Muslim countries than Western countries. Same with pork consumption. You will find that there is less incidence of pork consumption and drinking alcohol in Muslim countries than Western countries.

And then we take a look at the empirical evidence for China to determine the validity of such claims. Archaeology, palaeontology, genetics and so on.

Did King Arthur and his Knights of the Round Table exist? We have a strong "chain of narration' through the Dark Ages and the Middle Ages that suggests quite possibly. Yet even so we cannot determine the validity of such a claim until empirical evidence is found to support such a claim. Did King David exist? Moses? Joseph? Abraham? Adam?

But if they could not find any empirical evidence of China, the "scientist" approach would be to deny its existence. Yet the people who believed that China existed are in fact correct. Hence in this case, the narration of people is in fact a stronger evidence than the mere observation of those who take the "scientist" approach because they were able to arrive at the right conclusion - that China existed.

Sometimes, there are more things that are authentic evidence than what one thinks there are. You cannot detect the existence of a rainbow using touch as your evidence. The one who uses only feel as evidence for the existence of something and denies the validity of vision as evidence will deny the existence of a rainbow - even though they only need to use vision to confirm.

It's not unreasonable to demand evidence for extraordinary events that are not explicable by natural or scientific laws and attributable to a divine agency. Otherwise we can only go by no more than faith. And then anything is possible. I might have faith in the Flying Spaghetti Monster for example. There a strong chain of narration there too.

Of course one wants evidence for its occurrence, but they cannot limit the valid evidence that they accept. Among what is valid evidence is the actual witnessing of an extraordinary act. But there is more valid evidence than that.

Science uses logically self-consistent models or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from or is supported by experimental evidence. "Miracles" by their very definition are outside the framework of science. They are little more than the figments of human imagination

You assumed they were made up.

Actually, science has conclusions it actually arrived at with no evidence. The theory of evolution is one of them. There was no one who has witnessed neanderthals and reported their existence. No one ever saw the so-called common ancestors of human and ape and documented it. None of them have the ability to grab a piece of bone and confirm that it came from that so-called common ancestor. They cannot. They did not witness this, nor did anyone else witness this. Nor do they have a chain of narrations from those so-called ancestors. This is what people accept instead of incidences with a strong chain of narrations? VERY strange.

I am certainly not going to accept the validity of a phenomenon on the say so of one eyewitness. Hence I reject the 'miracles' attributed to the Prophet Muhammad, or indeed any other religious figure, from any denomination, who requires me to believe on faith alone.

I already clarified that there is a basis to deny something with only one eyewitness. But this is not the case. It is not "one eyewitness". For it to be unreasonable to reject, it has to be to an extent that people could not have conspired with each other to fool those around them. One "eyewitness" can do that. You are assuming the narrators of the Hadeeth are dumber than what they actually are.

 

[Hollow Knight]

Actually, science has conclusions it actually arrived at with no evidence. The theory of evolution is one of them. .

Just for those that missed it, this guy is doing a Bachelor of Science.

 

[Roylion]

Yes, I know who those people who say this are. They claim to believe in Islam and pray 5 times a day, yet reject any other form of evidence.

The rejoinder to pray five times a day is not a claimed miracle.

One may wonder how they actually know how many prayers they are required to pray, because that is not mentioned in the Qur'aan. The majority of Muslims accept the authenticity of the Hadeeths, so the people saying this are little in number in comparison.

Christians accept many of the Biblical teachings, but do not neccessarily accept the validity of miracles.

Also, what those people did not realise is that the Qur'aan is transmitted in the same way the Hadeeths are transmitted to us, and if it is possible that the Qur'aan we read nowadays is the true Qur'aan revealed at that time, it is possible that the Hadeeths and the surrounding events related by the people at the time of the Prophet is also present today in its authentic form

They have different formations at the very least. It is well recognised for example the Hadeeth

Yes it does. It is less likely that someone who disapproves of a mosque enters a mosque in comparison to someone who approves of it. Hence, there is more people who approve of a mosque entering a mosque than there is people who do not.

The frequency of sexual relations conducted in private are far different to measure than the largely public act of entering a mosque.

Hence, there is less incidence of approval of fornication among older generations than younger generations. Obviously, the incidence of fornication among people who approve of it is going to be higher than incidences of people disapproving of it.

This is an assumption only.

Drinking alcohol has a higher disapproval rating in Muslim countries than Western countries. Same with pork consumption. You will find that there is less incidence of pork consumption and drinking alcohol in Muslim countries than Western countries.

We can largely measure empirically the availability of pork (e.g number of pigs present or imported) or the amount of alcohol (made or And while the segregation of the sexes in some countries can be controlled in other countries where there is little to no segregation of the sexes it is almost impossible to ascertain the level of sexual activity whether in marriage or outside marriage. Therefore to make a claim that "fornication" is on the increase, is at best very subjective.

But if they could not find any empirical evidence of China, the "scientist" approach would be to deny its existence.

No they wouldn't. They would assign an amount of probability that such a place existed based on reason. The probability might be described as low or lower.

Yet the people who believed that China existed are in fact correct. Hence in this case, the narration of people is in fact a stronger evidence than the mere observation of those who take the "scientist" approach because they were able to arrive at the right conclusion - that China existed.

But you don't know for certain in this case that China existed. Just like we don't know for certain whether King Arthur, King David, Moses, Abraham or Adam actually existed as historical personages. The possibility that each did exist or did not exist varies according to the availabe evidence. Empirical evidence in thie case of where such a persnage or a place such as China could exist in the natural world. All of them certainly could have. Miracles are outside the realm of science.

Sometimes, there are more things that are authentic evidence than what one thinks there are. You cannot detect the existence of a rainbow using touch as your evidence.

But I can using 'sight' Rainbows are a phenomena of the natural world. They do not exist in the supernatural.

The one who uses only feel as evidence for the existence of something and denies the validity of vision as evidence will deny the existence of a rainbow - even though they only need to use vision to confirm.

And given the different sources of evidence for rainbows, including empirical evidence, there is no dount that rainbows can be obseved and explained by science in tests and other experiments as well as in nature over and over again. Miracles cannot. I see no reason to believe in miracles by Mohammed, Jesus or any other religious figure. I have plenty of reasons to accept the existence of rainbows, even if I've never personally seen one,

Of course one wants evidence for its occurrence, but they cannot limit the valid evidence that they accept.

I can place greater importance on certain types of evidence. Which I do. I see little to no evidence to believe in the miracles outlined in various religious texts.

Among what is valid evidence is the actual witnessing of an extraordinary act.

These are claims only.

Actually, science has conclusions it actually arrived at with no evidence. The theory of evolution is one of them.

Ahhh. Wondering when this would appear. You claim that evolution has no evidence is plain unadulterated rubbish. When combined with anthropology, archaeology and genetics, the scientific evidence for evolution has been confirmed over and over again by hundreds of thousands of pieces of evidence collected from all of the world. Yet you take a huge leap of faith in believing in a supernatural being that supposedly exists beyond time and space and purports to be the unknown, unseen Creator of the universe.

There was no one who has witnessed neanderthals and reported their existence.

We have their remains. We have their DNA. We know that some of Neanderthal DNA can be found in some homo sapiens.

No one ever saw the so-called common ancestors of human and ape and documented it. None of them have the ability to grab a piece of bone and confirm that it came from that so-called common ancestor. They cannot.

They can and they have.

They did not witness this, nor did anyone else witness this. Nor do they have a chain of narrations from those so-called ancestors. This is what people accept instead of incidences with a strong chain of narrations? VERY strange.

Only to the ignorant. Do some research.

I already clarified that there is a basis to deny something with only one eyewitness. But this is not the case. It is not "one eyewitness".

How many eyewitnesses did each 'miracle' have?

 

[Roylion]

Just for those that missed it, this guy is doing a Bachelor of Science.

Supposedly.

 

[Catastic82]

Just for those that missed it, this guy is doing a Bachelor of Science.

It's frightening it's really is

 

[Sydney Bloods]

the Most outstanding problem with islam is in fact the problem with the hadith.

anyone who's done a cursory review of islam knows it fails from the get that being that the Quran was assembled in time of old moe and remained unchanged.

and yet the very first man to claim it so, destroyed every other copy of the holy islamic text because others might contradict it.
now wether you believe Uthman's claims that his version is true and correct this canonisation occurred 20 years after the death of old moe.

so it is in fact historical fact, that A the current Quran was assembled in the life of the prophet, theirs simply no evidence to support it. the date of all Quran's currently existing comes from 20 years after moes death, the claims that the book came from moes wife Hafsa is a baseless claim theirs no proof.

its also historical fact that other versions of the Quran, which contradicted the current version. (more on that in later posts)
in fact many source point to the fact there was a dispute as too how the Quran should even be read out loud in communal prayer.

but even if we take all this for granted and assume that in fact that the book is was produced in moes lifetime and given to his life. we are still left with yet another problem. and that is the historical reforms and changes to the manuscripts during the period of the 5th caliphate.

we actually record references to changes to the manuscript. many claim that it refers to the way it was set out and no verses content was touched but again if the book is true correct awesome and uncorrupted why the alterations?

there's also the claim that the book was written in the original text and cannot be properly translated, yet historically the form its written in did not exist during the time of old moe, indeed at the time of old moe arbic writing was very primitive its impossible to accurately translate from scripts of moes time and the current script without the author present to clarify things such as verbs and what not indeed the very tone........... unfortunelty these changes occurred around the 10th century a few hundred years after old moes death. indeed no one was alive during the time of the language shift and thus impossible to verify the claim (and its an enormous leap to suggest that no changes were made erroneously over the period without the author present)

so now where in hot water, first we have destruction of qurans that we know existed during the time of moes life, the canonisation of one quran some 20 years after moes death. changes to the manuscripts some 120 years after moes death and fundamental shifts in the written arabic language some 300 years after moes death.

finally in the 11th century we see yet another major shift into the final txt we have today arranging the Quran as we see it today.

all of this and i havent even got to the issue of the overarching problem of the Hadith yet and remember the entire point of the Quran is that it is the only holy text that hasnt been altered or corrupted over time.

 

[skilts]

Well we try.



The goal is always to increase understanding and to diminish ignorance. Success is varying.

Such an admirable goal. Nothing about 'truth', 'knowledge' or 'belief'. No teleological agenda. Just to enable, and hopefully, foster 'understanding'. A modest and occasionally achievable objective. I had a history teacher like you. He changed my life. 50 years on, he still does.

 

[Pie eyed]

So many of you keep speaking about how my logic is flawed yet do not provide any arguments against what I have said. Instead, so many of you resort to insults.

I do not see you guys as genuine truth seekers, for the truth seeker would not throw jibes and insults while saying nothing else. For this reason, my discussion with you guys is over.

There is no argument against dogma. The term "tilting at windmills" was coined for the very situation.

 

[evo]

There was no one who has witnessed neanderthals and reported their existence. No one ever saw the so-called common ancestors of human and ape and documented it. None of them have the ability to grab a piece of bone and confirm that it came from that so-called common ancestor. They cannot. They did not witness this, nor did anyone else witness this. Nor do they have a chain of narrations from those so-called ancestors. This is what people accept instead of incidences with a strong chain of narrations? VERY strange.


.

Surely you are familiar with fossils, mate. How on earth were you accepted into a Bachelor of Science? This is primary school stuff.

 

[Pie eyed]

Just another hit and run parrot.

 

[Tichmond Rigers]

Surely you are familiar with fossils, mate. How on earth were you accepted into a Bachelor of Science? This is primary school stuff.

Oh please, I sat there in biology one day and was brought a skull of a so-called common ancestor of an ape and human. the skull was largely coloured brown, and was white in small patches. The teacher then said that the white patches is what was found and the brown patches are "yet to be found". Sounds like someone is trying to fulfill their imagination using bones that could have belonged to anything else. Perhaps they desperately try to make this theory work because they have spent so much energy and time in it that they fear people would laugh at them if they stopped now.

Scientists also claim that humans are the way they are now purely by chance. They claim that a species randomly finds a mutation that is able to better its chances of survival with no guidance whatsoever. They claim that parts of the environment surrounding us (such as fruit) is compatible with us and is able to sustain us "by chance". They believe that this entire world and what is in it came about "by chance".

Yet if you told them that a miracle occurs that defies the nature that we merely got accustomed to in our time, they claim that it is utterly impossible. If it is possible that the norm could have been different (like the human beings being the ones with wings that could fly, or the birds being the one with the intellectual ability that we have now, or insulin being the hormone that promotes the release of glucose into the bloodstream instead of glucagon), matters that defy the current norm could also occur in our world today. It isn't like scientists know everything, and they have no right to categorically reject the things that were reported that they did not see.

 

[Tichmond Rigers]

Supposedly.

Yes, I actually do study the Bachelor of Science and am entering my final year. The fact that you guys cannot believe it makes me wonder whether you guys actually know what the Bachelor of Science is all about. It isn't all about evolution and its like you know. But you learn about it on your way

 

[Hollow Knight]

Oh please, I sat there in biology one day and was brought a skull of a so-called common ancestor of an ape and human. the skull was largely coloured brown, and was white in small patches. The teacher then said that the white patches is what was found and the brown patches are "yet to be found". Sounds like someone is trying to fulfill their imagination using bones that could have belonged to anything else. Perhaps they desperately try to make this theory work because they have spent so much energy and time in it that they fear people would laugh at them if they stopped now.

Scientists also claim that humans are the way they are now purely by chance. They claim that a species randomly finds a mutation that is able to better its chances of survival with no guidance whatsoever. They claim that parts of the environment surrounding us (such as fruit) is compatible with us and is able to sustain us "by chance". They believe that this entire world and what is in it came about "by chance".

Yet if you told them that a miracle occurs that defies the nature that we merely got accustomed to in our time, they claim that it is utterly impossible. If it is possible that the norm could have been different (like the human beings being the ones with wings that could fly, or the birds being the one with the intellectual ability that we have now, or insulin being the hormone that promotes the release of glucose into the bloodstream instead of glucagon), matters that defy the current norm could also occur in our world today. It isn't like scientists know everything, and they have no right to categorically reject the things that were reported that they did not see.

http://askuon.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/142/~/what-happens-if-i-fail-a-course?

 

[Tichmond Rigers]

he rejoinder to pray five times a day is not a claimed miracle.

Didn't claim that it was. You said that they did not take from Hadeeth and I was telling you that they claim to pray 5 times a day. I was trying to highlight their contradiction, because it isn't mentioned in the Qur'aan how many prayers are an obligation on Muslims. They have taken knowledge from Hadeeths, yet claim they do not. They are misguided.

They have different formations at the very least. It is well recognised for example the Hadeeth

Both were transmitted orally from the Prophet and then were transmitted to the Companions.

But I can using 'sight' Rainbows are a phenomena of the natural world. They do not exist in the supernatural.

That is not my point of stating this. Someone would be unreasonable to deny the existence of a rainbow by only using touch as evidence and rejecting any other forms of evidence. You cannot detect rainbows by touch. you can only detect them by sight. You are trying to observe evidence of a miracle through physical observation and choosing to only use this as evidence. If you do not see this, you reject it. However (as I proved to you in the previous analogy), a chain of narrations is also a valid form of evidence.

Ahhh. Wondering when this would appear. You claim that evolution has no evidence is plain unadulterated rubbish. When combined with anthropology, archaeology and genetics, the scientific evidence for evolution has been confirmed over and over again by hundreds of thousands of pieces of evidence collected from all of the world. Yet you take a huge leap of faith in believing in a supernatural being that supposedly exists beyond time and space and purports to be the unknown, unseen Creator of the universe.

Nope, check what I wrote in response to the user named evo on here. I mentioned in there what I have seen passed off as "evidence" and that is a joke.

The intellect proves what I believe (check previous posts of mine) + the reports of miracles.

They can and they have.

No they cannot. This piece of bone could have been from another living creature. In order to confirm this, they would have needed to come across an actual neanderthal, take its DNA sample, document it, pass it on for generations, confirm that this so-called neanderthal split into two different species, document it, and then later on take a DNA sample from that found piece of bone and compare it with the neanderthal's DNA and confirmed a match. They did NOT do this. They see one thing and come up with theories spawning out from it.

How many eyewitnesses did each 'miracle' have?

Some have thousands of witnesses. Do not think we are as stupid as you think we are. I have a feeling that this may have something to do with arrogance. Scientists confirm the work of people like Charles Darwin and Isaac Newton, yet do not think that others have the ability to do the same. We have a stronger tradition than written documents, and that is memorization. Among us, there are many people who have memorized the Qur'aan word for word, cover to cover, and also book of scholars.

 

[Tichmond Rigers]

http://askuon.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/142/~/what-happens-if-i-fail-a-course?

I actually passed biology with a Distinction average

 

[Sydney Bloods]

Oh please, I sat there in biology one day and was brought a skull of a so-called common ancestor of an ape and human. the skull was largely coloured brown, and was white in small patches. The teacher then said that the white patches is what was found and the brown patches are "yet to be found". Sounds like someone is trying to fulfill their imagination using bones that could have belonged to anything else. Perhaps they desperately try to make this theory work because they have spent so much energy and time in it that they fear people would laugh at them if they stopped now.

Scientists also claim that humans are the way they are now purely by chance. They claim that a species randomly finds a mutation that is able to better its chances of survival with no guidance whatsoever. They claim that parts of the environment surrounding us (such as fruit) is compatible with us and is able to sustain us "by chance". They believe that this entire world and what is in it came about "by chance".

Yet if you told them that a miracle occurs that defies the nature that we merely got accustomed to in our time, they claim that it is utterly impossible. If it is possible that the norm could have been different (like the human beings being the ones with wings that could fly, or the birds being the one with the intellectual ability that we have now, or insulin being the hormone that promotes the release of glucose into the bloodstream instead of glucagon), matters that defy the current norm could also occur in our world today. It isn't like scientists know everything, and they have no right to categorically reject the things that were reported that they did not see.

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/NIgfiSzCy1o/mqdefault.jpg

you completely misunderstand the entire point of evolution, it's not chance. the random mutations occur all the time not just the ones that advantage the lifeform some disadvantage and so offer nothing either way. in the end how ever those that are suited to the environment give it the best shot have a higher chance of being passed on while those that disadvantage it eventually die out.

as for your "skull" i look forward to your thesis after analysing the bones that prove the pieces of the skull were randomly assembled from a bunch of different skulls.

your battier than half the christian nutters. also if you could produced Hafsa's original documents proving your Quran wasn't just assembled from just "anything else" it would be much appreciated. I mean its this fundamental all important document that is a direct to to old moe himself, you guys obviously kept it when you were off burning all the Qurans you didn't agree with right?

 

[Sydney Bloods]

Some have thousands of witnesses. Do not think we are as stupid as you think we are. I have a feeling that this may have something to do with arrogance. Scientists confirm the work of people like Charles Darwin and Isaac Newton, yet do not think that others have the ability to do the same. We have a stronger tradition than written documents, and that is memorization. Among us, there are many people who have memorized the Qur'aan word for word, cover to cover, and also book of scholars.

http://www.visualexpert.com/Resources/eyewitnessmemory.html

I'm actually thinking you're dumber than i expected no idea why you're taking a bachelor of science seeing as you don't accept scientific principles theories and models without actually making any real attempt explain these flaws you're so aware of.

 

[Tichmond Rigers]

the Most outstanding problem with islam is in fact the problem with the hadith.

anyone who's done a cursory review of islam knows it fails from the get that being that the Quran was assembled in time of old moe and remained unchanged.

and yet the very first man to claim it so, destroyed every other copy of the holy islamic text because others might contradict it.
now wether you believe Uthman's claims that his version is true and correct this canonisation occurred 20 years after the death of old moe.

so it is in fact historical fact, that A the current Quran was assembled in the life of the prophet, theirs simply no evidence to support it. the date of all Quran's currently existing comes from 20 years after moes death, the claims that the book came from moes wife Hafsa is a baseless claim theirs no proof.

its also historical fact that other versions of the Quran, which contradicted the current version. (more on that in later posts)
in fact many source point to the fact there was a dispute as too how the Quran should even be read out loud in communal prayer.

but even if we take all this for granted and assume that in fact that the book is was produced in moes lifetime and given to his life. we are still left with yet another problem. and that is the historical reforms and changes to the manuscripts during the period of the 5th caliphate.

we actually record references to changes to the manuscript. many claim that it refers to the way it was set out and no verses content was touched but again if the book is true correct awesome and uncorrupted why the alterations?

there's also the claim that the book was written in the original text and cannot be properly translated, yet historically the form its written in did not exist during the time of old moe, indeed at the time of old moe arbic writing was very primitive its impossible to accurately translate from scripts of moes time and the current script without the author present to clarify things such as verbs and what not indeed the very tone........... unfortunelty these changes occurred around the 10th century a few hundred years after old moes death. indeed no one was alive during the time of the language shift and thus impossible to verify the claim (and its an enormous leap to suggest that no changes were made erroneously over the period without the author present)

so now where in hot water, first we have destruction of qurans that we know existed during the time of moes life, the canonisation of one quran some 20 years after moes death. changes to the manuscripts some 120 years after moes death and fundamental shifts in the written arabic language some 300 years after moes death.

finally in the 11th century we see yet another major shift into the final txt we have today arranging the Quran as we see it today.

all of this and i havent even got to the issue of the overarching problem of the Hadith yet and remember the entire point of the Quran is that it is the only holy text that hasnt been altered or corrupted over time.

There is one thing that you do not know about Islamic way of transmission - Many of us memorize the Qur'aan word for word. They do it now, and did it then. They memorize Hadeeth word for word as well. Even if the written texts were to be removed and locked into a room away from the access of the people, they would be able to write it down since Prophet MuHammad's (peace be upon him) time until today, because throughout the times there were people that memorized it and would have been able to check it. And this includes ^Uthmaan.

There are 10 different recitations of the Qur'aan. But the 10 different recitations do not differ in meaning. You would need to know Arabic to know how this would be. Remember that the people were very well known for their eloquence in the Arabic language in the past so were able to read without the dots and letters. When they noticed that there were many non-Arabs becoming Muslim, to make it easier for them, YaHya Ibn Ya^mar innovated the dots on the letters. He didn't change the meanings of the Qur'aan

 

[Tichmond Rigers]

http://www.visualexpert.com/Resources/eyewitnessmemory.html

I'm actually thinking you're dumber than i expected no idea why you're taking a bachelor of science seeing as you don't accept scientific principles theories and models without actually making any real attempt explain these flaws you're so aware of.

No, I feel as though you guys have trouble comprehending. I can tell this because I find that I am having to repeat myself on why I take the Bachelor of Science.

 

[Tichmond Rigers]

http://www.visualexpert.com/Resources/eyewitnessmemory.html

I'm actually thinking you're dumber than i expected no idea why you're taking a bachelor of science seeing as you don't accept scientific principles theories and models without actually making any real attempt explain these flaws you're so aware of.

So many people who describe the same thing are all stating something false? Perhaps all of the people who have seen China with their own eyes have "eye witness memory", because that is what you claim when you say that more than a thousand people who saw the same thing had "eye witness memory". It is unreasonable cynicalism

 

[Sydney Bloods]

There is one thing that you do not know about Islamic way of transmission - Many of us memorize the Qur'aan word for word. They do it now, and did it then. They memorize Hadeeth word for word as well. Even if the written texts were to be removed and locked into a room away from the access of the people, they would be able to write it down since Prophet MuHammad's (peace be upon him) time until today, because throughout the times there were people that memorized it and would have been able to check it. And this includes ^Uthmaan.

There are 10 different recitations of the Qur'aan. But the 10 different recitations do not differ in meaning. You would need to know Arabic to know how this would be. Remember that the people were very well known for their eloquence in the Arabic language in the past so were able to read without the dots and letters. When they noticed that there were many non-Arabs becoming Muslim, to make it easier for them, YaHya Ibn Ya^mar innovated the dots on the letters. He didn't change the meanings of the Qur'aan

everyone's aware of the Hamil. if your seriously suggesting oral traditions never changed your a off with the fairies.
without written txt their worthless and you know it or would if you actually understood the basics of historical record which should have been addressed in your BOS course. evidence based research is a core tenet of science.

and you can't not include the 7 among 2 transmitted texts its expressly forbidden. there's a reason they were collected separately.
and if they all never changed the meaning explain for example shifting status of Basmalah between Warsh and the Haf's version's of the Quran?

 

[Sydney Bloods]

No, I feel as though you guys have trouble comprehending. I can tell this because I find that I am having to repeat myself on why I take the Bachelor of Science.

well if you don't mind, could you recite the post number where you actually explain why your taking the course instead of repeating that you're taking it.